So Help Me Allah!
Bookworm is a blogger and occasional American Thinker contributor (much like myself) who has written a piece critical of Dennis Prager`s argument against America`s first Moslem Congressman swearing in on the Koran. She makes a good case, and points out something which I had been thinking:
All of which gets us back to Keith Ellison and his originally stated intention to take the oath of office relying solely on his Koran. Although there is often a vast chasm between theory and practice, theory, as I understand it, says that a true Muslim cannot simultaneously believe in the Koran's dictates and swear an oath to protect a Western legal document such as the Constitution. The two documents (the Koran and the Constitution) envision entirely antithetical laws and the Koran mandates that its believers, as part of their faith, bend every effort to ensuring the Koran's ascendancy over all other forms of government and faith.
In other words, Prager was wrong about Ellison's using the Koran at his swearing-in, not because it represented an act of multiculturalist self-obsession, but because a really religious man cannot do both acts at the same time. That is, as a devout Muslim, one cannot swear to support any political system other than Shari'a, and one certainly can't do so using the very same Koran that proscribes all other systems.
I`ll go her one better:
Bukhari:V7B67N427 "The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'"
In short, the Koran commands Ellison to break any vow to a secular government when that vow becomes inconvenient.
Oathbreaking is serious business, because all covenanting revolves around fulfillment of a promise. That the Moslem will casually violate any oath if it conflicts with his submission to what he perceives as the Will of Allah makes it impossible to trust him. Swearing on the Koran merely excuses any breech in loyalty to his Oath and Country, because Islam demands loyalty above all else.
This contrasts sharply with the commands of Jesus, who told his disciples to keep their oaths, obey the civil authorities, and ``render unto Caesar that which is Caesar`s``. When a Christian swears on the Bible he is not taking this oath before men but before God Himself, and his oath is binding. (That is why the Bible recommends against oath taking in most cases-lest you fall short before the Throne of God.)
In fact, I`d feel more confident if Ellison swore on the Constitution than on the Koran; he would not feel so justified to break his vow.
We need a better understanding of the nature of Islam if we are to survive the clash of civilizations we are now engaged in.
All of which gets us back to Keith Ellison and his originally stated intention to take the oath of office relying solely on his Koran. Although there is often a vast chasm between theory and practice, theory, as I understand it, says that a true Muslim cannot simultaneously believe in the Koran's dictates and swear an oath to protect a Western legal document such as the Constitution. The two documents (the Koran and the Constitution) envision entirely antithetical laws and the Koran mandates that its believers, as part of their faith, bend every effort to ensuring the Koran's ascendancy over all other forms of government and faith.
In other words, Prager was wrong about Ellison's using the Koran at his swearing-in, not because it represented an act of multiculturalist self-obsession, but because a really religious man cannot do both acts at the same time. That is, as a devout Muslim, one cannot swear to support any political system other than Shari'a, and one certainly can't do so using the very same Koran that proscribes all other systems.
I`ll go her one better:
Bukhari:V7B67N427 "The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'"
In short, the Koran commands Ellison to break any vow to a secular government when that vow becomes inconvenient.
Oathbreaking is serious business, because all covenanting revolves around fulfillment of a promise. That the Moslem will casually violate any oath if it conflicts with his submission to what he perceives as the Will of Allah makes it impossible to trust him. Swearing on the Koran merely excuses any breech in loyalty to his Oath and Country, because Islam demands loyalty above all else.
This contrasts sharply with the commands of Jesus, who told his disciples to keep their oaths, obey the civil authorities, and ``render unto Caesar that which is Caesar`s``. When a Christian swears on the Bible he is not taking this oath before men but before God Himself, and his oath is binding. (That is why the Bible recommends against oath taking in most cases-lest you fall short before the Throne of God.)
In fact, I`d feel more confident if Ellison swore on the Constitution than on the Koran; he would not feel so justified to break his vow.
We need a better understanding of the nature of Islam if we are to survive the clash of civilizations we are now engaged in.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 6:16 AM
2 Comments:
Good points. I had heard the media types complaining about this guy wanting to swear on a koran vs. the bible & my first thought was "f" him, make him swear on the bible. Then I thought, what good is his oath on the bible if he doesn't believe in what it stands for?
Bottom line, the clowns in Minnesota deserve what they get. I hope we all don't suffer.
The Bible, the Koran or the Torah, the problem isn’t the book it’s the intent of the individual. Let’s say a Satanist is elected--he wants to swear on the Satanic Bible. Now, only one who’s familiar with Satanism knows that overthrowing Christianity is the goal.
My point is: We all know that honest people need to be informed and vote. Yes, Keith Ellison was elected, but will he be re-elected. Now, it’s for Ellison to put up or shut up.
Post a Comment
<< Home